In January, the Tokyo District Court found that a tort had been committed and ordered the North Korean government to pay compensation over the repatriation project that sent ethnic Koreans in Japan to North Korea from the 1960s to the ‘80s.
The case was brought by four plaintiffs who moved to North Korea but later defected back to Japan. They expressed hope that “the ruling would help dispel the notion that escapees’ suffering was merely their own responsibility in Japanese society.” At the same time, they voiced concern for family members and acquaintances still in North Korea and renewed their hopes for improved Japan-North Korea relations.
Under the repatriation project carried out from 1959 to 1984, approximately 93,000 ethnic Koreans residing in Japan and their families moved to North Korea to settle there. They did so believing Pyongyang’s claims that the country was a “paradise on earth” with ample housing, food, and clothing. In reality, life in North Korea was harsh – and a return back to Japan was nearly impossible.
According to Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) statistics, the vast majority (around 80 percent) of the total number of people who went to North Korea did so during the first three years of the project, from its inception through 1961. After that, the number dropped sharply, and the program ended in 1984.
On January 26, the Tokyo District Court, in a retrial, ruled that the repatriation program constituted “a continuous tortious act in which the [North Korean] government encouraged the movement based on false information, then deprived people of their freedom to leave after arrival, forced them to remain, and subjected them to harsh living conditions.” The court ordered the North Korean government to pay a total of 88 million yen (around $553,000) in compensation to the four plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in 2018. Although they lost the case in the first trial in 2022, they successfully had the case remanded to the district court on appeal in 2023. This marks the first time that the North Korean repatriation program has been ruled an unlawful act within the Japanese judicial system.
“I am grateful that the Japanese court acknowledged the North Korean government’s wrongdoing,” said Yoko Sakakibara, 76, one of the plaintiffs. She expressed hope that, after the ruling, the traditional view in Japanese society that “those who suffered in North Korea through the repatriation project have only themselves to blame” will change, even slightly.
In the North Korean apartment building where she lived at the time, the tap water only reached the third floor. None of the floors above had running water. “It was an environment where, even if we had complaints about daily life, we couldn’t say anything to the government,” she recalled.
Professor Yoshiaki Kikuchi of Kanazawa Seiryo University, an expert on the Korean Peninsula, commented, “This ruling is of great significance in Japanese judicial history. Not only is it the first ruling ordering compensation from the North Korean government, but it is also the first time a Japanese court has recognized a long-standing international project as an illegal act.”
He further noted, “This serves as a catalyst for a fundamental reevaluation of Japanese society’s traditional view that, since those who participated in the repatriation project crossed over of their own volition, they had no choice but to endure a difficult life.”
According to Kikuchi, in the 1950s in Japan, people from the Korean Peninsula and their families suffered from severe discrimination and economic hardship. At the time, the positive image of socialism also encouraged people to move to North Korea. He noted that North Korea was facing intense competition with South Korea during the Cold War. Pyongyang felt a need to promote the superiority of socialism, which also played a role in the repatriation trend.
Since there were no diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea at the time, the repatriation program was carried out under an agreement between the Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS) and the North Korean Red Cross. The General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon), which operated under the covert guidance of the Kim Il Sung regime at the time, launched a large-scale campaign in Japan to promote repatriation, and the Japanese government tacitly approved these efforts.
While some have called for the JRCS to be held accountable, the organization defended itself. “At the time, there were no diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea, and the freedom to choose one’s place of residence is an internationally recognized human right,” the JRCS said in an emailed statement. “We carried out the project while confirming the free will of those who wished to return.”
Despite the ruling, it will be difficult in practice for the plaintiffs to receive compensation from North Korea. It is unclear whether there are any North Korean assets within Japan that could be seized.
Fumio Yamada is chairman of the Association for the Protection of the Lives and Human Rights of Returnees from North Korea (an NGO that supports escapees who have fled North Korea). He pointed out, “With no prospect of receiving compensation or any economic benefit, it is unlikely that anyone will file a similar lawsuit in the future.”
Sakakibara noted another issue: “Among the younger generation, including my own children who defected, many do not want their background to be known to society.”
Some of the plaintiffs, while glad to have left the hardships of North Korean life behind, feel a desire to be reunited with friends and families in North Korea.
“Since I returned to Japan at the age of 60, most of my friends are in North Korea, and I miss them dearly,” Sakakibara said. She expressed her hope that relations between Japan and North Korea will improve, allowing people to travel freely between the two countries.
Kim, 67, who moved to North Korea with his family of four in 1973 at the age of 15 and returned to Japan in 2008 at the age of 50, argued that the repatriation project and the abduction issue are connected.
Among those who went to North Korea through the repatriation project, there were cases where relatives remained in Japan. According to Kim, these relatives were sometimes used as leverage to force them to cooperate with North Korea’s abduction activities in Japan.
Kim appealed, “It is true that there are difficult issues in Japan-North Korea relations, such as the missile threat, but I would like the Japanese government to act with the primary goal of rescuing those who went to North Korea and cannot return.”
